All that stuff is about the reddit ceo CHANGING a post done by a user.

Not relevant in this case at all. Has nothing to do with a site being allowed to delete content.
Section 230:

I’m going to take a detour for a moment because understanding 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Section 230) is what this all hinges on. Here is the Electronic
Frontier Foundation’s straightforward explanation: ‘ Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online
intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for
what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of “interactive
computer service providers,” including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for
certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to
flourish. ‘ Think of it like a billboard at a local college. The college puts a billboard up for students to make community announcements. The
college never uses it. Then Adam writes something defamatory and false about Betsy. Betsy is upset and sues Adam and the college. A court would allow
the lawsuit to proceed against Adam, but not the college because they just provided the platform and had nothing to do with the comments.

And much of the case law reference's are about businesses commenting on their own website's.

Furthermore, how does changing a post differentiate from deleting one, simply because you disagree with it? You mean to tell me every video on
inforwars youtube channel violated the ToS? I find that pretty hard to believe. They had a number of comedy segments.

ETA
My point is if they get into the business of deleting videos they disagree with (not videos that violate the T&C) they get in the business of being
responsible for everything that is posted and not removed. There are a great many lawsuits that would spawn from that.

My take: If InfoWars wasn't doing some real hurt to CNN's credibility, why would they seem to be so interested in promoting their unfair takedown.
Looks like everything people have been saying about the Hogg kid has been validated. Who is CNN gonna come for next??

(CNN)InfoWars, a far-right media organization run by Alex Jones and known for peddling unfounded conspiracy theories, is on thin ice with YouTube
after it posted a video that portrayed the survivors of the Parkland school shooting as actors.

The Alex Jones Channel, Infowar's biggest YouTube account, received one strike for that video, a source with knowledge of the account told CNN.
YouTube's community guidelines say if an account receives three strikes in three months, the account is terminated.

Not just CNN. Tons of people. Dude is a tabloid channel that quotes and uses his own website and articles as the source. It's actually really sad.

Amazing to see so many defend the drunk at the end of the bar getting kicked out because he's too loud & obnoxious & the other patrons have begun to
complain.

Regardless all you're "waaa, censorship" nonsense this is merely a case of being bounced out the bar because you can't keep from acting like a total
idiot.

K~

Check out /r/the_donald subreddit if you want to see censorship. Try engaging in a polite and well thought out discussion with literally any trump
supporter on there. Deleted and banned in minutes, guaranteed.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.